Video: Rand Paul goes “behind enemy lines” at Berkeley?

posted at 10:01 am on March 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

In one sense, perhaps, but in another sense, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) may find himself right at home in the nexus between libertarianism and college-campus activism. Not too many Republicans get standing ovations from audiences at UC Berkeley, after all, which is one of the most activist-progressive campuses in California or the nation. However, Paul’s focus on individual liberty and constraining federal intrusion into private lives offered a rare bridge between a major national GOP figure and Berkeley students, and Paul made the most of it:

Delivering a rare speech for a Republican at this bastion of liberalism, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday was given multiple standing ovations by the left-wing audience after railing against government surveillance and warning the students: “Your right to privacy is under assault.”

“I am here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you’re under surveillance,” he told the crowd. …

“No one should be allowed to invade your privacy,” Paul said. “That’s why I’m announcing today that when I return to Washington, I will push for a select committee styled after the Church Committee that investigated the abuses of power of the intelligence committee in the 70s. It should be bipartisan. It should be independent, and wide reaching. It should have full power to investigate and reform those who spy on us in the name of protecting us.”

Added Paul: “It should watch the watchers.”

National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher calls this a behind-enemy-lines operation to allow Republicans to compete for votes in what had been one of the strongest Democratic Party demographics:

“For the Republican Party to win again we need to go places we haven’t been going, and we need to attract people we haven’t been attracting. Part of that is the message, but part of that is also showing up,” Paul told National Journal. “I think we need to show up in challenging circumstances, so you don’t think of Berkeley as being a bastion of Republican politics and so I think it’s a good place to go.”

Paul, a fierce critic of the National Security Agency’s tactics, believes the issue of surveillance can—and has already started to—peel young voters away from President Obama and the Democratic Party.

“The youth vote went 3-to-1 for President Obama but recent polls, in the last six months, have shown his support dropping because, mostly because of the NSA scandal, I think,” Paul said.

Paul said he also wants to make a push into big cities where Republicans have been swamped in recent elections. “We have a trip planned to Chicago and Milwaukee to talk about school choice and to talk about education in the large cities and how we can do a better job than what we’re doing,” he said.

If Paul does follow through on that strategy, then he can expect to take some heavy flak from Democrats, certainly heavier than he will attract with his Berkeley speech. House Budget chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) tried talking about poverty recently, agreeing with President Barack Obama on the need to change the culture in urban areas where poverty runs rampant. For that bipartisan agreement, Ryan got pilloried as a racist, Rich Lowry writes:

n his instantly notorious interview with radio talk show host Bill Bennett, Ryan discussed fatherlessness and the importance of role models to passing along an example of hard work. “We have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular,” he said, “of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

For this offense, Ryan was awarded an honorary white hood by the liberal commentariat. But the broad sentiments are indistinguishable from those of Obama in the statements quoted above—all emphasizing a breakdown of work and the consequences of fatherlessness and social isolation—except Obama’s comments were more explicitly racial.

When Barack Obama says such things, which are undeniably correct, he is a brave truth-teller; when Paul Ryan says them, he is making an odious play for racist votes.

We may get a chance to discuss this with Rep. Ryan today on the Ed Morrissey Show. Meanwhile, here is Rand Paul’s full speech to the Berkeley Forum. He includes “full-throated defense[s]” of traditional Republican fiscal positions, according to Politico, but mainly focused on privacy and libertarian-friendly themes to offer a new and, er, tastier image of the GOP. “Remember Domino’s [the pizza chain] finally admitted they had bad crust?” Paul said in response to a question after his speech. “I think the Republican Party finally admitted it. OK, bad crust, we need a different kind of party.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

This is what you have to do. Get out of the comfort zone, go to the other groups and start selling individual liberty and conservatism. The groundwork has to be laid now, which Paul is doing. So many Republicans wait till the last 2 months before a general election to pretend to start loving the other constituencies. These voters aren’t dumb, you have to pay them some attention during the years before an election.

I see people trying to compare him with Cruz. Cruz is a clown who can only embarrass himself before being laughed off the national stage. Paul is a shrewd politician.

MJBrutus on March 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM

I agree that Paul and Cruz cannot be compared, but for different reasons. Rand Paul has it in his DNA to be an isolationists and a panderer to identitiy politics. Our current foreign policy is basically the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy. So, if you don’t like what you see in the world today, you can bet that it would not be any better if one of the Pauls were in charge. So, to make the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy look sane, your kind smear the rest of us with “wanting endless wars” and “wanting boots in every country”.

Cruz is a clown, only to libs, Libertopians and other ideologically deficient sheeple. Expect Paul to speak at NAACP and La Raza conferences/conventions like other identity politic pimps. What’s next? Muslim outreach, because it fits with the anti-semitism so prevalent in the Paulhroid community.

Rand Paul has it in his DNA to be an isolationists and a panderer to identitiy politics. Our current foreign policy is basically the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy. So, if you don’t like what you see in the world today, you can bet that it would not be any better if one of the Pauls were in charge…”.

Bleed_thelizard on March 20, 2014 at 2:02 PM

That’s a pretty bizarre analysis. Rand Paul’s foreign policy would be nothing like Obama’s, which has basically been a continuation of Bush’s foreign policy. Rand Paul would not have helped foster “democracy” everywhere, which was the root of the Arab Spring and most of our overseas problems.

It is his naive foreign policy and reluctance (understandably in one sense) to publicly distance himself from his crazy father.

I don’t think his foreign policy is naive. I think he rejects the principle that it is the duty of the US to intervene in every dispute around the world.

We’re coming up on 1.5 decades of non-stop war, so I think that’s a pretty popular opinion. I don’t think you are going to get a lot of traction in national politics making aggressive statements about Russia.

And I say this an someone who has spent the last 35 years as a foreign policy hawk.

I agree that Paul and Cruz cannot be compared, but for different reasons. Rand Paul has it in his DNA to be an isolationists and a panderer to identitiy politics. Our current foreign policy is basically the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy. So, if you don’t like what you see in the world today, you can bet that it would not be any better if one of the Pauls were in charge. So, to make the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy look sane, your kind smear the rest of us with “wanting endless wars” and “wanting boots in every country”.

Cruz is a clown, only to libs, Libertopians and other ideologically deficient sheeple. Expect Paul to speak at NAACP and La Raza conferences/conventions like other identity politic pimps. What’s next? Muslim outreach, because it fits with the anti-semitism so prevalent in the Paulhroid community.

Bleed_thelizard on March 20, 2014 at 2:02 PM

That has to be the most inane rant I think I have ever read. Nowhere in that mess of grammatical diarrhea was a lucid statement. Would a Paul give weapons and money to al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria? Would they allow tax-payers to fund the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Would they not allow Israel to defend their borders? You should read up before you post garbage and call those who disagree with you anti-Semites.

He might get standing O’s from commies at Berkeley but he will get a cold shoulder from the Iowa caucus goers.

Norwegian on March 20, 2014 at 1:37 PM

The biggest reason he got that standing O from the progressive-fascists at Berkeley is because Rand Paul is positioning himself as the modern-day Frank Church in the US Senate.

In the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, and when faced with some real abuses of power by the Presidency towards American citizens as well as abuses in the intel community – Church worked to gut the capabilities of the intel community and put them under significant oversight – Democrat Senatorial oversight which ultimately weakened the US and significantly politicized the intel community.

Over time, and in particular since 2004 and expanding significantly once Barack Obama gained power (fully intending to exercise that power for political purposes), real abuses of power have returned.

The anti-American progressives in Berkeley cheered because they see Rand Paul as leading a new effort to neuter the US – this time in the name of ‘fixing’ the abuses of power that took place in the ‘war on terror’. It was as welcome to them as the followers of the America First Committee cheered Charles Lindbergh in the early 1940′s as he advocated appeasement and isolationism vis a vis the war in Europe.

It is his naive foreign policy and reluctance (understandably in one sense) to publicly distance himself from his crazy father.

Deep down, I don’t Rand Paul can or will distance himself from his father or his naive and feckless foreign policy worldview.

Are you talking about that Asswari guy in Yemen? That guy gave up his citizenship when he took up arms against us. I just wish I was the drone pilot who gets to kill him.

Yes, one is crazy to defend enemies of the US, be it born here or not.

Bleed_thelizard on March 20, 2014 at 2:04 PM

I was referring to Anwar al Awlaki and his son. They were both born in the USA and regardless both were entitled under the rule of law to have due process. You are advocating lynching and anarchy. Now that’s crazy.

While Russia was planning to move into Crimea, Paul was warning that U.S. officials should not “tweak Russia all the time” and should instead “be respectful.” Other Republicans have not said anything similar, and it is difficult to imagine Reagan – who believed it was important to call out the Kremlin – saying it either.

I agree that Paul and Cruz cannot be compared, but for different reasons. Rand Paul has it in his DNA to be an isolationists and a panderer to identitiy politics. Our current foreign policy is basically the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy. So, if you don’t like what you see in the world today, you can bet that it would not be any better if one of the Pauls were in charge. So, to make the Ron/Rand Paul foreign policy look sane, your kind smear the rest of us with “wanting endless wars” and “wanting boots in every country”.

Cruz is a clown, only to libs, Libertopians and other ideologically deficient sheeple. Expect Paul to speak at NAACP and La Raza conferences/conventions like other identity politic pimps. What’s next? Muslim outreach, because it fits with the anti-semitism so prevalent in the Paulhroid community.

“I met in the last few days with Rand Paul. I spent a lot of time with him, and I’ve grown to really like him,” Reid of Nevada said in a news conference today. “Even though he has some set political views, he wants to get things done here.”

For the rabid Rand supporters, why doesn’t “free enterprise zones” bother you at all? If you believe that crony capitalism is wrong, then you should be against this. The silence on this is deafening.
nobar on March 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM

I agree. As an economist, the whole country should be a free enterprise zone. I find this proposal very troubling, and it seems to be code for Crony Capitalism. Paired with his Amnesty push, it seems like he is in the pocket of the US Chamber of Crony Capitalism. Why is he focusing on Immigration unless he is for Amnesty? Why is he focused on free enterprise zones if he is not focused on picking winners and losers. People just fawn over him because of his dad, Mr Magoo, but that is not enough for me

For the rabid Rand supporters, why doesn’t “free enterprise zones” bother you at all? If you believe that crony capitalism is wrong, then you should be against this. The silence on this is deafening.
nobar on March 20, 2014 at 12:01 PM

That’s way down on the list of things that would cause me to not vote for someone. Practically irrelevant. Govt. bonds and taxes are routinely used to build football stadiums, etc. An enterprise zone would be less egregious than those examples.

While Russia was planning to move into Crimea, Paul was warning that U.S. officials should not “tweak Russia all the time” and should instead “be respectful.” Other Republicans have not said anything similar, and it is difficult to imagine Reagan – who believed it was important to call out the Kremlin – saying it either.

Again, Rand Paul is an ISOLATIONIST…just like his nut-job father is.

Rand Paul/Ron Paul…no difference there.

Bob Davis on March 20, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Here is the problem with globalists like yourself. You like to beat your chest and talk, it’s all about vanity to you. You are willing to use men as chess pieces for what? Freedom, whose freedom? Ukraine’s, a country that has been playing both sides against each other in order to get the best deal to bail out their economy. We went off to war, and what happened we started something we couldn’t or even worse didn’t want to finish. So if you want to know whose the nut job it is the fools who are willing to risk prosperity, stability, and our reputation in the name of saving face.

That’s way down on the list of things that would cause me to not vote for someone. Practically irrelevant. Govt. bonds and taxes are routinely used to build football stadiums, etc. An enterprise zone would be less egregious than those examples.

cimbri on March 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Cause equality under the law is so overrated, right? And rent seeking? What is that?/

Blah blah, blah. Republicans “take flak” for everything. If Paul wins, this will be why. I can’t understand why more Republicans don’t go “behind enemy lines.” Reagan did. As Breitbart said, “if you can’t sell liberty, you suck.” Republicans don’t even try to sell it. What a gutless and unimaginative party. Paul seem to get it.

rrpjr on March 20, 2014 at 3:30 PM

There are some in the Republican Party that believe the only way to win over voters is to throw them bones, i.e. amnesty. Others in the party will brandish anyone that dares to reach out to non-traditional Republican voters as not being pure enough or panderers.

Reagan didn’t just rely on sweeping the Republican western states and winning enough of the Midwestern states to get to 270. Reagan campaigned in the heart of Carter Country in 1980, the south, and won every state with the exception of Georgia.

That’s way down on the list of things that would cause me to not vote for someone. Practically irrelevant. Govt. bonds and taxes are routinely used to build football stadiums, etc. An enterprise zone would be less egregious than those examples.
cimbri on March 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Ahhhh…. The famous TARP promotion strategy. Government intervention is needed to save the economy

Rand Paul is the anti-Rove. Rove, smart as he is, invented compassionate conservatism, which is really liberalism, with goodies going to different slices of the electorate than the Dems.
Reagan was a happy warrior for liberty and so is Rand Paul. He has ideas and passions and sells those ideas. That’s why he excites people (except for the GOP establishment).
PattyJ on March 20, 2014 at 5:02 PM

The fact that Rand Paul is not specific on his policy ideas reminds me of another Senator who ran for president

This is what you have to do. Get out of the comfort zone, go to the other groups and start selling individual liberty and conservatism. The groundwork has to be laid now, which Paul is doing. So many Republicans wait till the last 2 months before a general election to pretend to start loving the other constituencies. These voters aren’t dumb, you have to pay them some attention during the years before an election.

cimbri on March 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Blah blah, blah. Republicans “take flak” for everything. If Paul wins, this will be why. I can’t understand why more Republicans don’t go “behind enemy lines.” Reagan did. As Breitbart said, “if you can’t sell liberty, you suck.” Republicans don’t even try to sell it. What a gutless and unimaginative party. Paul seem to get it.

rrpjr on March 20, 2014 at 3:30 PM

There are some in the Republican Party that believe the only way to win over voters is to throw them bones, i.e. amnesty. Others in the party will brandish [banish?] anyone that dares to reach out to non-traditional Republican voters as not being pure enough or panderers.

Reagan didn’t just rely on sweeping the Republican western states and winning enough of the Midwestern states to get to 270. Reagan campaigned in the heart of Carter Country in 1980, the south, and won every state with the exception of Georgia.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Reagan did not “go behind enemy lines” so much as he moved the lines themselves.
Reagan was well known and popular around the country before he entered presidential politics. He had also spent decades touring the country educating people about conservative principles. He “sold” conservatism because he taught people what that meant, and he gave the ideology a face.
People voted “Reagan” more than they voted “Republican” – which is why the gains didn’t stick.
No one in either party has the same stature or appeal (some have one or the other; most have neither).
Which is why Rand Paul is doing the “right thing” strategically (regardless of how you feel about his political positions). He is preaching to the converted (those who already agree with the highlighted positions), converting the preached to (with reason and passion), and giving his principles a familiar, friendly face.
It’s a long game — Reagan was in politics for a long time — but it’s the only one that will work if you aren’t “unique” in some way that has appeal outside of your own policies.

At first glance, Paul seems like a good prospect to lead the GOP in 2016. Then he states that conservatives should forget social issues, backs amnesty for illegals, misstates Reagan’s views on foreign policy as he attempts to smear Cruz and cozies up to McConnell and the other establishment CINOs. At second glance, one realizes that Paul is not special after all. Sad.

Rand is the best hope the GOP will have to win the white house. He trusts voters to make up their own minds about social issues and to let the constitutional process take its course. This is what will draw young people as well as the moderate Democrats.
Cruz and Santorum repel these groups with their my way is the only way approach. Neither exhibit any real respect for people who don’t agree with them and they would not win in a general election. They will rightfully argue that Obama has the my way or the highway mentality but voters are savvy enough to recognize hypocrisy.

So what you are likely to see is Rand as the nominee after a primary season in which Cruz, Perry and Santorum split the partisan conservative vote. He will pick Rubio as the VP. Christie will be the keynote speaker and Cruz the red meat speaker. Rand will win with over 350 electoral votes and the hyperpartisan element of the conservative base will claim it was their contribution alone that made it all possible.

Save this and bookmark it — the moderate has spoken and she is never wrong.

Save this and bookmark it — the moderate has spoken and she is never wrong.
B.A. Moderate on March 21, 2014 at 4:25 AM

On this topic you are. Cruz and Santorum are 2 very different people. Cruz runs on Fiscally and Socially conservative issues. Santorum runs on Social Conservative issues only. Rand Paul is not the conservative people think he is. His endorsement of Mitch McConnell should be a red flag. But more specifically, he is pro amnesty, pro crony capitalism, anti 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, and is an isolationist

That he is supporting the senior senator from his home state, that he is supporting his party’s leader in the Senate, that he is attempting to prevent a Democrat from taking a seat in KY ( a state that has a habit of electing Dems statewide, including their sitting governor)… these are all to be considered red flags?

Are you high?

In one breath, you attack him for supporting the establishment, and in the next breath, you try to say he is just like his old man. Yeah. Ron Paul, well-known establishmentarian.

If your going to senselessly attack the man, at least try to figure out which direction you’re coming from…

At first glance, Paul seems like a good prospect to lead the GOP in 2016. Then he states that conservatives should forget social issues, backs amnesty for illegals, misstates Reagan’s views on foreign policy as he attempts to smear Cruz and cozies up to McConnell and the other establishment CINOs. At second glance, one realizes that Paul is not special after all. Sad.

fight like a girl on March 21, 2014 at 1:01 AM

He didn’t say “forget” about social issues, just to realize that this is not the hill to die on in 2016… that the GOP needs to focus their message, and that message is economy, jobs, government waste, government intrusion, oh yeah did I mention economy? And how’s that “affordable” care act workin’ for ya?

The younger voters of today are for gay marriage, legal pot, and no more federal meddling in these and other social issues. I’m pretty sure a good chunk of them are for fiscal conservatism, but you’re just gonna push them away by continuing to wag your finger and shout “SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!” We need their votes NOW to save America from economic collapse, so I think we gotta cool it with the slut-shaming and gay-marriage-bashing for the time being.

He didn’t say “forget” about social issues, just to realize that this is not the hill to die on in 2016… that the GOP needs to focus their message, and that message is economy, jobs, government waste, government intrusion, oh yeah did I mention economy? And how’s that “affordable” care act workin’ for ya?

The younger voters of today are for gay marriage, legal pot, and no more federal meddling in these and other social issues. I’m pretty sure a good chunk of them are for fiscal conservatism, but you’re just gonna push them away by continuing to wag your finger and shout “SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!” We need their votes NOW to save America from economic collapse, so I think we gotta cool it with the slut-shaming and gay-marriage-bashing for the time being.

TMOverbeck on March 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Without holding the principles of individual liberty, RESPONSIBILITY & SELF-CONTROL, “fiscal coservatism” is a weak reed that will break at the first cry of “I waaa fweee nummies!” from the HoneyBooBoo crowd.

So it is okay for the left to wag their fingers, shove gay marriage, abortion on demand and pot dens down our throats but it is not okay for anyone to have an opposing opinion? BTW, the overwhelming majority of social conservatives aren’t “slut-bashing” or “gay-marriage bashing”. Your choice of words to demonize social conservatives speaks volumes. You failed to comment on Rand’s support of amnesty or his tepid support for repealing Obamacare. Rand is a libertarian first, a conservative a distant second. Lately, he has proven that he is a politician above all else. He has swallowed the kool-aid that the left, the media and republican establishment has produced that says conservatives can’t win. FOUR MILLION REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME IN 2012! They didn’t stay home because Romney was too conservative. Also, Romney won Independents. Funny how the democrats win because of their base but republicans are told that they can’t do the same, even though both parties have about the same number of voters who claim their party affiliation. I think it is time for people like you to stop bashing social conservatives.

It seems like your criticism is misdirected. I seen all your posts praising Ron Paul, and now you are calling him establishment ? And when I point out substantive problems with Rand Paul, I should ignore them? Sounds pretty trollish to me….

He didn’t say “forget” about social issues, just to realize that this is not the hill to die on in 2016…
TMOverbeck on March 21, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Did I miss something? Which Republican has ran on Social Issues in a Presidential Election? Come to think about it, what did McCain or Romney stand for? I have no idea. If you can’t state your case on social issues, how can you state your case on fiscal issues? Half the posts that I have seen here act like we have had a bunch of Santorums winning the Presidential primaries. If you can’t stand on what you believe in, why should anyone believe that you have any principles. That was Romney’s problem.

Did I miss something? Which Republican has ran on Social Issues in a Presidential Election? Come to think about it, what did McCain or Romney stand for? I have no idea. If you can’t state your case on social issues, how can you state your case on fiscal issues? Half the posts that I have seen here act like we have had a bunch of Santorums winning the Presidential primaries. If you can’t stand on what you believe in, why should anyone believe that you have any principles. That was Romney’s problem.

Brock Robamney on March 21, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Well said! Romney and McCain were the perfect “can’t lose” candidates, according to the establishment and the liberal media. Neither uttered a word about social conservative issues yet they both lost. So why do these secular/atheist libertarians and establishment republicans keep blaming social conservatives? Let’s run a real conservative in 2016 and see what happens.

Well said! Romney and McCain were the perfect “can’t lose” candidates, according to the establishment and the liberal media. Neither uttered a word about social conservative issues yet they both lost. So why do these secular/atheist libertarians and establishment republicans keep blaming social conservatives? Let’s run a real conservative in 2016 and see what happens.

fight like a girl on March 21, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Romney didn’t lose because he struggled with social conservatives. Evangelicals turned out in record numbers and Romney won 80% of that voting block. Romney lost because he didn’t stand for anything in particular, except being “not-Obama.” McCain’s chances ended when the economy crashed in September.

Line the candidates up, and we’ll see how they’re playing on Main Street during the debates and the state campaigns. In the case of Romney, we had the guy who won the most primaries, and who also polled the best in a general election. That’s all we can do without a crystal ball. If Cruz or some other self proclaimed conservative has that going for him, then I will certainly get behind him or anyone else. Right now, it looks like Rand Paul is our best chance, and it’s not even close.

Romney didn’t lose because he struggled with social conservatives. Evangelicals turned out in record numbers and Romney won 80% of that voting block. Romney lost because he didn’t stand for anything in particular, except being “not-Obama.” McCain’s chances ended when the economy crashed in September.

midgeorgian on March 21, 2014 at 3:04 PM

I am a social conservative but not an Evangelical. The only elections where Evangelicals made a difference were in 1980, 1984 and 2004. Four million Republicans did not vote in 2012 because Romney, as you said, didn’t stand for anything. Mccain didn’t stand for anything either. Both men talked about the economy and stayed away from social issues and yet they lost…because they stood for nothing! You made my point!

Line the candidates up, and we’ll see how they’re playing on Main Street during the debates and the state campaigns. In the case of Romney, we had the guy who won the most primaries, and who also polled the best in a general election. That’s all we can do without a crystal ball. If Cruz or some other self proclaimed conservative has that going for him, then I will certainly get behind him or anyone else. Right now, it looks like Rand Paul is our best chance, and it’s not even close.

cimbri on March 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Romney won the primaries because they were fixed by the establishment and helped by the kool aid drinkers who were stupid enough to believe that only Romney could win. He didn’t. And neither did that other sure fire winner, McCain. Paul is not as bad as them but it is too early to be choosing the nominee. I have been very disappointed with Paul and his luke warm response to repealing Obamacare and his support for some type of amnesty. By the way, both of these are social issues that effect the economy.

Reagan was a Goldwater libertarian.
John the Libertarian on March 22, 2014 at 4:26 AM

Are you high? I wish you libertarians would stop rewriting history. Reagan was a communist fighting CONSERVATIVE! He was also a social conservative who wore his love of God on his sleeve. He did not believe in the ” do whatever you feel like” libertarian creed. He was pro life and anti drugs.

Romney won the primaries because they were fixed by the establishment and helped by the kool aid drinkers who were stupid enough to believe that only Romney could win.

fight like a girl on March 21, 2014 at 6:36 PM

That is so silly. Nobody fixed anything. Romney whipped one social con after another, and then defeated Gingrich in the 2 critical Florida debates decisively. Santorum won some rump caucuses with social con protest votes, but it was a done deal after Florida. Palin and others helped drag it out, while Obama attacked Romney. A little unity and we might have won that election.